
rEjhfc 






."'MP 




^^m*z& 


M. 1 ■ 





i LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. # 



t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 4 

f. # 



SLAVEHOLDING- NOT SINFUL 



AN ANSWEK 



BY HENEY K. HOW, 



TO 



JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ.'S REPLY 



TO THE ARGUMENT OP 



REV. DE. I-IOW. 




NEW-BRUNSWICK, N. J. : 

PRINTED AT THE FREDONIAN AND DAHY NEW-BRUNBWICKER OFFICII. 



1856. 



New-Brunswick, March 8, 1856. 

TO HON. JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. 

Dear Sir : 

I have just finished reading your reply to ray father's argument 

before General Syuoi, entitled, " Slaveholding not Sinful." It was 
brought to me this morning, and as it requires little thought and less 
reflection to rebut your arguments, I shall at once proceed to the task. 
I take the liberty to reply, because you refer to the "copyright 
secured," and as that was done in my name and for my benefit, I am 
of course an interested party, and can with propriety reply to your 
attack. 

Your first assertion worthy of notice is, that Dr. How has pub- 
lished an argument " apologizing for, supporting, sustaining, giving aid 
and comfort, in all its length and breadth, to the shocking and loath- 
some system of human bondage as it exists in the United States." 
Now, Sir, I reply that no candid, intelligent reader of the argument 
could have come to such a conclusion, indeed, you, yourself, on the 
very same page, contradict this assertion of yours, and your contra- 
diction is contained in the following words. Addressing Dr. How, you 
say : " I am quite aware that in terms you say but little of American 
Slavery as such ;" and on your fourth page another contradiction of your 
first charge, in these words : " Yet, so adroitly have you presented your 
case, that if it had not been for certain modern expressions which you 
made use of, found only in the present pro slavery vocabulary, we 
might in fact have been led into the impression that it was, after all,, 
only the ancient slavery that you was justifying." So you perceive,. 
Sir, that by your last two you have contradicted yom first assertion) 
and charge against Dr. How of " apologizing for, ^'.staining, supporting 
and giving aid and comfort, in all its length and breadth, i@, the loath- 
some system of human bondage as it exists in the United States."' 
But, Sir, aside from your contradiction, your assei tior*! 1* not' true, and 
exhibits either a misapprehension of the scope and spirit of Dr. How's 
argument, or a wilful perversion of it. As I have quoted your 



4 SLAVEHOLDINQ NOT SINFUL! 

charge, now I shall give Dr. How's words as used at the commence- 
ment of his argument. When speaking of slavery, he says: " We 
admit that it is an evil much to be lamented, but we deny that it is a 
sin against God or a crime against man." 

Docs this look like "'apologizing for, supporting, sustaining, in all 
its length and breadth" &c. Again, Sir, your charge is proved to be 
unfounded by a quotation I shall now make from the 25th page of Dr. 
How's argument, where he says, (speaking of the law forbiding to 
teach the slaves to read,) "Permit me to remark that our Southern 
Christian brethren are fully impressed with their duty to communicate 
the Gospel to their slaves." 

Then he quotes and endorses the following sentiment, published in 
the Southern Presbyterian Review, at Columbia, S.C., where the writer 
says, "It is, then, as plain as daylight that Christianity condemns all 
laws of the State, and all ideas and practices of individuals which put 
aside the immortality of the slave, or regard him in any other light 
than that of a moral and responsible fellow creature of our own. Wo 
have no hesitation in declaring that we accord with Judge O'Neall in 
earnestly desiring the repeal, for example, of the law against teaching 
the slave to read." Now, Sir, I could rest this point here with all 
safety, but I will proceed to challenge you to quote one passage in the 
whole of Dr. How's argument "apologizing for, supporting or sus- 
taining " any act of injustice ever perpetrated by a slaveholder upon a 
slave. To this, I know, Sir, you may reply that he has " apologized for, 
supported and sustained " the holding of a slave, and that the holding of 
a slave is unjust and a sin. But how pitiable would be such a reply. 
It would be a begging of the question. Whether it is a sin to hold a 
slave, is the question in dispute. You contend that it is a sin ; 
Dr. How contends that it is not a sin. And you are an advocate and 
a counsellor at-law, and have been as a Member of Congress a law-maker, 
and have prosecuted and defended prominent criminal cases in the courts 
of New-Jersey, and you know that a man is not to be pronounced 
guilty until his guilt is proved, and without proof a matter at issue is 
not to be decided. 

Therefore, I call upon you to prove that slavcholding is a sin be- 
fore you proceed to argue as though it were a sin ; or to draw 
conclusions from arguments based upon the assumption that to hold a 
slave is a sin. 

Sir, you have, by misrepresentation, endeavored to place Dr. How 
in a false position before the public, and to make him say things that 
he did not say, and advocate points that he did not advocate. And 
you, Sir, draw conclusions from his arguments when those arguments 
do not tend to such conclusions. This I shall prove. First, you try 
to make him apologize for the injustice and abuse of power that slave- 
holders may inflict upon their slaves, and from the abuse of the 
power and light to hold a slave, you argue that it is sin to hold a slave. 
You do not discriminate between the just and proper use of a thing and 
its unjust sinful abuse. And you, Sir, endeavor to make Dr. How ap- 



AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. 5 

pear as " apologizing for, supporting and sustaining, in all its length and 
breadth," the unjust, sinful abuse of slaves. Whereas, he is only defend- 
ing the just and proper use. If this principle were a correct one, that 
it is right and proper to pronounce and treat as sinful everything or 
anything because it has been abused, the enforcing of such a principle 
would undermine the foundation upon which society rests, and destroy 
the peace and harmony of every human relation that God has ex- 
pressly ordained and instituted. lias not the relation of law-giver 
and judge been abused ? Has not the marriage relation been abused ? 
Has not the parental relation been abused ? And did not the devil 
abuse, misapply, and pervert the Sacred Scriptures, when he tempted 
Christ with a perverted passage of the Bible, to cast himself from the 
pinnacle of the temple. ? And did you not, my dear Sir, abuse this 
passage of the Sacred Scriptures, when you endeavored falsely to make 
my father say that slavery is without " spot or wrinkle, or any such 
thing?" Nothing would delight Satan more than to have the princi- 
ple established that because a thing has been abused, therefore it is a sin 
to use it. The Bible has been abused ; therefore it is a sin to use the 
Bible. Such is I know the doctrine of those who would exclude the 
Bible from popular use, and have it remain a sealed book. But the 
mass of our people do not believe such doctrine, but consider that those 
who preach thus are the devil's aid-de-camps, and do his dirty work. 
Would you then pronounce as sinful the marriage, parental, and judi- 
cial relations, and treat them as sinful. You would not, and ought 
not ; therefore, you should not, on the ground of its abuse, pronounce 
and treat as sinful, the relation and position of a slave bolder, only 
because that relation and position has been abused. You only have a 
right to pronounce sinful that which God has declared to be sinful ; 
and until you have shown and proved conclusively, that slaveliolding 
is a sin, you certainly have no right to argue upon the asumption 
that it is a sin. Now, Sir, living in the daily practice of sin excludes 
men from the communion of the Church, and exposes them to eternal 
death, and often renders them obnoxious to the penalty of human law. 
And you know, Sir, to expose men to the penalty of the law requires 
more than the assumption that there is a law forbidding the act they have 
committed; and requires strong proof also thai they have violated the 
law, if there happens to be a" law forbidding the commission of the 
act. How much more, Sir, does it require strong and conclusive 
evidence of the violation of law, before you proceed to pronounce 
as sinful, and place beyond the pale of the Church a large portion of 
our Christian fellow citizens, and to blacken the memory of our ances- 
tors ? and yet, Sir, you do not and cannot produce one express com- 
mand or prohibition of the just and all-wise God against the holding of 
a slave. The slaveholder has rights as well as the slave, and those 
rights should be respected, and you should be very sure you do not 
trample on his right to demand that you should produce God's law and 
God's testimony before you pronounce him outside the pale of the 



SLAVEHOLDING NOT SINFUL : 



Churcli, or living in sin. Yes, " God's law and God's testimony, for if 
they speak not according to these, "they are all dumb dogs." 

But to return to your Reply. On the fourth page, you address Dr. How 
thus : " You must have known that it was the slavery of this country, 
over the disgusting exhibition of which the stars and stripes of free- 
dom float in mockery — the slavery that exists in North Carolina, and 
within the limits of the Classis seeking admission into the Dutch Church 
— which that body shrunk from participating in. This, and this only, 
was the slavery that you defended so valiantly, for this was the only 
slavery in question, — none other needed defence. It is true, that in 
making your onset upon the friends of freedom, you found it much 
easier to raise a false issue than to defend the true one. The only 
question was in regard to American Slavery, but to defend this, I pre- 
sume, seemed too Herculean an undertaking to attempt directly, and so 
you threw over it the flimsy mantles of Abraham and Paul, and coolly 
transferred the scene of the conflict from the cotton fields and rice 
swamps, the slave pens, the auction blocks and whipping posts of the 
South, where it properly belonged, to the land of the olive and the 
vine, where the Great Ruler of the Universe, for reasons of his own, 
granted privileges to, and tolerated practices among, his peculiar peo- 
ple, not sanctioned anywhere else before or since."" To this I answer 
that Dr. How was well aware that it was the Classis of North Carolina 
that the abolitionists and free churchmen were trying to keep out. 
But he was also well aware that if the principle was proved and estab- 
lished that to hold a slave was a sin, a malum per se, (a sin in and of itself,) 
that it would be a sin to hold a slave all over the world, even in those 
countries where it was not prohibited by law, and there made a malum 
prohibitum., (that is, a sin only because the laws of the land forbid it.) 
Accordingly he made, to quote his own words, his appeal " to the Scrip- 
tures of truth, heartily assenting to the teachings of the confession of faith 
of our Churcli, which says, ' AVe believe in the sufficiency of the Holy 
Scriptures to be the rule of faith. "We believe that the Holy Scriptures 
fully contains the words of God, and that whatsoever man ought to be- 
lieve unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein. Therefore we reject 
with all our heart whatsoever doth not agree with the infallible rules 
which the Apostles have taught us, saying, 'Try the spirits, whether 
they are of God; likewise, if there come any one to you and being not 
of this doctrine, receive him not unto your house.'" And he knew 
that when there was no law of God there could be no transgression, and 
consequently no sin. Accordingly he affirmed that there was no law 
of God forbidding the holding of a slave, and challenged them, and 
now challenges the abolitionists to produce any ; and he proved in an ar- 
gument that you have not answered that God bad authorized it in va- 
rious parts of the world that he had sanctioned it. He had incorpo 
rated master and slave by express terms within his covenant; that the 
sign of the covenant was administered to both ; that the laws that God 
gave through Moses recognized the light of a master to own slaves, 
and to their services also; that Christ and his Apostles enforced these 



AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. 7 

laws ; and that, under the gospel dispensation, slaveholders and their 
slaves were admitted to church membership ; that special commands 
were given to regulate the intercourse between master and slave ; " and 
that the Apostle* Paul and the angel Jehovah himself sent back to their 
masters slaves who had runaway from them." He also showed that 
Christ had said of a Roman Centurion who confessed that he held 
slaves, " I have not seen so great faith, no, not in Israel." The Cen- 
turion, mark it, was a Roman Centurion, not a Jew, and held slaves 
under the Roman law that admitted of enormities and excesses, before 
which the worst features of American Slavery appear _ as tender mer- 
cies when compared with their diabolical cruelty. Still Christ, by this 
act, although he condemned injustice and cruelty, acknowledged and 
established" the fact that a man could be a Christian and yet hold slaves, 
even under the tenor of the law that admitted of so great enormities. 
Should not, therefore, every candid and unbiased mind come to the con- 
clusion that we, who are no better than Christ and his Apostles, ought 
not attempt to exclude Christian North Carolinians, who_ live under 
and hold slaves under a far more humane law from Christian Church 
connection, or pronounce that their holding of slaves is a sin. This 
and other proofs derived from the practices of the early Christians were 
adduced by Dr. How to prove that the principle or doctrine was not a 
correct or true one ; that the buying of a slave, the using of a slave, 
and the holding of a slave was a sinful practice, and that, therefore, the 
holding of slaves by the people of the North Carolina Chassis was not 
a sin, and because it was not a sin they should not be excluded on the 
mere unproved pretext of its being sinful. Hoes not this bring the ar- 
gument home to the North Carolina Classis. Can you understand this 
position? If you can, do not again assert that Dr. How stood upon 
any other ground, or maintained any other doctrine. _ So much for 
Dr. How's position, and your misapprehension or misrepresentation 
of it. . 

One expression of yours in this connection is worthy of notice, in 
order to invalidate the strength of Dr. How's argument you proceed to 
cast discredit upon some of his principal witnesses. Christ you dare 
not attempt to discredit. His testimony and practice was far above 
your impeachment. But the head of the visible Church, under the 
old dispensation, and the Apostle to the Gentiles, come in for a share 
of sneering abuse. "The flimsy mantles of Abraham and Paul,'" 
" Flimsy," aye ! " a reed shaken by the wind." The conduct and prac- 
tice of Abraham and Paul was flimsy, was it ? The practices of Abra- 
ham and the teaching and conduct of Paul, were indeed two of the 
mantles that Dr. How threw over American Slavery, and safe and hap- 
py are they who come under the mantle of their protection. Abraham 
and Paul need no eulogium from me. Neither of them were sinless, 
but then the one lived in the possession of slaves, sanctioned by God 
in the express word of His Covenant, and the other spoke as he was 
moved by the Holy Ghost. Their conduct in such cases was neither 
flimsy or impeachable. I have tried to, but cannot escape from draw- 



• 8LAVEH0LDINO NOT SINFUL : 

ing tins meaning from your expression. If you intend to say that 
the example of Abraham and of Paul was inapplicable to the point in 
dispute, you should have said that " American Slavery was flimsily 
covered by the mantles of Abraham and Paul." And if you intended 
to say that Dr. How had applied the example and teaching of Abraham 
and Paul in an imperfect and clumsy manner, you should have said "cov- 
ered in a flimsy manner by the mantles of Abraham and Paul." So, 
Sir, I cannot relieve my mind from the conviction that you have given 
utterance to an infidel sentiment. 

Proceeding a little further with the quotation I have made from your 
argument, I find that you say God "granted privileges to, and tolera- 
ted practices among, his peculiar and chosen people, not sanctioned any 
where else, before or since." From your words, " not sanctioned any 
where else, before or since," it is very proper for us to conclude that 
these privileges were sanctioned then and there, ; and that the then you 
speak of, was under Abraham and was under Christ and his apos- 
tles, and that the there was the land of the olive and the vine, or in 
other words, Canaan and Judea. Accordingly it is proper for us to 
conclude that you say that God sanctioned practices in Canaan and 
Judea under the old dispensation or Abrahamic Covenant, and in Judea 
under his apostles, and the early Christians, that he does not sanction 
now. It is slavery that you are writing about in this connection. There- 
fore you have admitted that God sanctioned slavery then and there. 
This is just what Dr. How asserted, and by this admission you 
have lost your whole case, for God never sanctioned sin. 
If, therefore, God never anywhere or at any time sanctioned sin, but 
has sanctioned slaveholding, I am sure it cannot be a sin now and 
here. Can the same facts that are adduced in favor of slaveholding 
be adduced in favor of those practices that you refer to as permitted 
then but now forbidden by God. Can it be said of polygamy that 
it was sanctioned and never forbidden ? Can it be said of concubinage 
that it was sanctioned and never forbidden ) No; nothing of the kind 
can be said with truth; but it can be said of slaveholding that it was 
sanctioned and never forbidden ; and besides, I would have you to re- 
member that there is a vast difference between a permission and a sanc- 
tion. A man may permit his child to spend his dollar for sjme foolish 
toy, and yet never approve or sanction the foolish expenditure. I 
have noticed already the contradiction that you are guilty of on this. 
fourth page, wherein you assert differently and contrary to what you as- 
serted on the first page of your argument relating to apologizing, &c. r 
&c. I will now proceed to notice a term, at the use of which you ap- 
pear to take great umbrage, to wit : the term " abolitionist;" a word that, 
with the help of Cruden's Concordance, you could not find in the Scrip- 
tures. As you say you could not find it, I will not dispute it ; neither 
can you find their doctrine, or their precepts taught or sanctioned in the 
Sacred Scriptures; but, Sir, if you will look at 1 Tim. vi. chap., 1 to 5, 
jou will find their precepts and practices condemned in the following 
words : — 



AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DTKE, ESQ. 5> 

"1. Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own 
masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be 
not blasphemed. 

" 2. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, 
because they are brethren ; but rather do them service, because they are 
faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. 

"3. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, 
even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is 
according to godliness; 

" 4. He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and 
strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 

" 5. Perverse disputing^ of men of corrupt minds, ami destitute of the 
truth, supposing that gain is godliness : from such withdraw thyself." 

Your indignation at the term abolitionist has lead you into the use 
of hard names, and you have been pleased to apply the elegant and 
classical term "doughface" to such men of the North as are willing 
to accord to their Southern fellow-citizens all rights that are not con- 
trary to the Constitution of the United States. Certainly, Sir, if you 
like to roll the word "doughface" like a sweet morsel under your 
tongue, I am willing, and I shall use the term " abolitionist " where- 
ever it is deserved and applicable; and that it was applicable, pointedly, 
intensely applicable to certain members of the Dutch Synod, can bo 
proved by the language of some of them as reported in the New- York 
Tribune of June 16, 1855, when it stated that Dr. Wyckoff of Al- 
bany, and Dr. Bethune of Brooklyn, opposed the introduction of the 
Classis on the ground that it would make disturbance in the Church. 
And now I quote: "the other objection was, that slavcholding was a 
sin, and that we ought not to hold communion with slaveholders." 
This opposition was raised by the Rev. Isaac Duryea of Schenectady, 
who said "I can say that my inmost soul shrinks from the idea of our 
extending the fellowship of our church to slavcholding churches, as I 
shrink from the touch of the torpedo." 

And that the term abolitionist is applicable to all who make the non- 
holding of slaves a test and condition of Church Communion, 1 can 
easily prove. The spirit and language of the abolitionist in the 
Church is this — Do away with slavery among you and we will admit 
you ; hold slaves and we will not admit you. Thus they make the hold- 
ing or not holding of slaves a test and condition of church member- 
ship, and require the abolition of slavery before admitting them to 
organized union. One word more: you charge Dr. TTow with making 
an onset upon the friends of freedom. The charge is unqualifiedly 
false. The false friends of freedom made the onset upon him. Thej 
attacked his report which was in favor of admitting the Classis into the 
Church. He knew it was not a sin to hold a slave, and it had never 
in the Dutch denomination been made a test of church union and 
membership, and he did not suppose that there was any man in the 
Dutch Church so fanatical as to 'say that it was. The onset was made 
upon Dr. How. He did not commence the controversy, but it has 



10 SLAVEIIOLDING NOT SINFUL '. 

always been the habit of those who make a disturbance without a 
cause to charge the disturbance or trouble to those who are most inno- 
cent of it. 

This conduct of yours is like the conduct of the Frenchman with 
the red-hot poker, who rushed into the street and demanded of the 
first man lie met that he would let him run the poker into his body 
just six inches. This the man very decidedly declined. "Let me run 
it in four inches?" said the Frenchman. " No!" said the man. "Let 
me run it in two, then ?" " No !" said the man. "Let me run it in 
one?" "No!" replied the man earnestly, "you shall not run it in at 
all !" " Vel den," said the Frenchman, " Pay me for heating the 
poker !" Now you have charged Dr. How with making the onset. Next 
you will sav that the Classis of North Carolina made all the disturbance by 
paying the Dutch Church so great a compliment as to ask to be united. 
But to another point found upon your fourth page at the bottom, you say 
" It was American Slavery then, and not Jewish Slavery that you 
were endeavoring to introduce into the Dutch Church." Introduce in- 
to the Dutch Church, indeed, as though it had not been introduced 
there already, and long, long ago; and besides it was a Dutch ship in 
1620 that first introduced negro slaves into this country.* Is it not 
a fact well known to every well informed man, that ministers, elders, 
deacons, and church members, belonging to the Dutch Church, both 
in New-Jersey and the State of New-York, held slaves? And it is also a 
fact that slaves are now held by communicants belonging to the Dutch 
Church. But, Sir, it is not true that Dr. How was trying to introduce 
slavery into the Dutch Church, any more than he was trying to intro- 
duce Christianity into the Dutch Church. Christianity existed in the 
Dutch Church, and would remain there whether the North Carolina 
Classis came in or not. Slavery existed in the Dutch Church and 
would remain there whether the North Carolina Classis and their slaves 
came in or not. It is true that slavery is likely to die out in the Dutch 
Church. And so too is pure Christianity likely to die out, should the rulers 
of the Church with the consent of the people, prescribe laws that Christ 
never prescribed. I have already noticed your contradiction and also 
your abuse of Scripture, on the top of your fifth page, where you en- 
deavor to make Dr. How say that American Slavery is without " spot 
or wrinkle, or any such thing." So I will proceed to notice an ad- 
mission of yours that completely takes the foundation from under your 
castle of error, and tumbles it to the ground. You admit that the rela- 
tion of master and slave "may exist without sin and without wrong," 
"when the old and worn-out slaves are cast by the law of the land 
upon the master or his estate for maintenance and support. Here the 
owner could not sever the relationship if he would, and if in that condition 
he cares for them properly, such relationship cannot be considered sinful. 
But such cases prove nothing, except that a slaveholder meti/he humane, 
and that the laws of the land may impose some obligations on him 
which he would be very glad to be free from." You admit that it is 
* See Frost's Hist. U. S. 



AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. 11 

not sinful to hold the old and the worn-out slaves, and maintain them 
in New-Jersey, provided they are treated properly. This principle 
then ought to apply to North Carolina, and to the slaveholding States 
of the Union, and to all countries where slavery exists ; unless New- 
Jersey is out of the world as well as the United States, as some would 
have us believe. 

This admission acknowledges that old and infirm and decrepid 
persons in bondage, unfit for freedom, should the law of the land forbid 
their being set free, may be held as slaves. Therefore all of 
this class may be held in North Carolina without sin. And it also 
proves something more than that a slaveholder may be humane, for 
there are laws of just this kind in NorthCarolina ; therefore it proves 
that slaveholders in North Carolina may be humane, and especially 
Christian masters in North Carolina may be humane. And your as- 
sertion that the laws of the land may impose some obligations on a 
slaveholder which he would be very glad to be free from, should be 
applied to the Christians and others in North Carolina, who are for- 
biden by the laws of the State to emancipate their slaves within the 
bounds of the State, and to all Christians where such laws exist under 
similar circumstances. And the admission of this principle, to wit : 
that the State may make laws compelling slaveholders not to emanci- 
pate their slaves in the State, will relieve of sin such Christians and 
others at the South, who do not teach their slaves to read, because it 
is forbidden by the laws of the State. No, Sir, they are no more 
living in sin because they live under such laws, than you and I are 
living in sin, because we live under the Fugitive Slave Law. And as 
well might the General Assembly of Scotland decide that we of the 
Free States are living in sin and iniquity, because we live under such 
a law, and that they will not have ecclesiastical connection with us on 
that account, even though you and many at the North would repeal 
the law at any time you had the power to do so. And so would many 
of the Christians of the South repeal the law forbidding to teach slaves 
to read. Thus, Sir, it has clearly followed from your admission, that 
slaves may be held without sin and without wrong, when it would be 
contrary to the laws of the land that arise from considerations of safety 
to the State and justice to the slave to set them free. And, Sir, I 
think that you will be forced to admit that those Christians of the 
South who live under laws that bear unjustly upon the slave, but de- 
sire the repeal of those laws on the ground of their being unjust, are 
no more living in sin than you and the opposers of the Fugitive Slave 
Law are living in sin because you are living in a land where it is en- 
forced and you have not the power to repeal it. 

I am willing to look with you at "slavery in this country, as it is, 
not as it might be male — at its origin, its practices, its incidents, 
its consecpuences and traffic — the laws by which it is sanctioned — not 
only what slaveholders may do contrary to law, but what they may do 
according to law, in all the States of the Union where it is tolerated." 
I will adopt the order in which you say we must look, and will not 



12 SLAVEIIOLDING NOT SINFUL! 

diverge to answer your extravagant assertion that Dr. How has 
described slavery, with all its abuses, as a pure and immaculate thing, 
and that he voluntarily commenced tbe controversy. Neither will I 
linger long near " the green shores of Jordan." It will be sufficient 
for me to cast behind one "last, long, lingering look," until I behold 
Truth, triumphant in the struggle, consign your mangled mass of error 
to the black and slimy pools that fume and fester in the sun near the 
Dead Sea's mouth on the " other side of Jordan." 

You say that slaveholding had its origin in man-stealing, and that 
"every one knows that our ancestors, both of Europe and America, went 
to Africa and stole them ;" or, if they did not steal them, for a trifle 
they bought them of those who did, knowing them to have been stolen. 
"The receiver is as bad as the thief." "No matter how many degrees 
removed, our title is simply one of larceny." "It is a certain and un- 
deniable conclusion, that the title of every slaveholder in the land to 
his human chattels is a title w hose foundation rests in the blackest 
crime." This, sir, you assert, but do not prove ; and it is incumbent 
upon you, and upon every one who makes this assertion, to bring the 
proof of so sweeping a charge. But, without insisting upon the proof 
just now, let us examine whether the charge is true. You say that 
"our ancestors stole them," "or if they did not steal them themselves, 
for a trifle they bought them of those who did, knowing them to have 
been stolen." * How do you know this ? Is the fact of holding a slave 
prima facie evidence of the slave having been stolen by somebody ? 
Perhaps v<>u may say that it is, then I will proceed to show that slaves 
can be held to service, that is to give their time and labor for the benefit 
of another, (even though it is involuntary,) without being stolen. This 
will lead us into the consideration of how men involuntarily become 
slaves. And first, sir, we will start with the position that men forfeit 
rights by crime. This needs no proof. Slate prisons and jails are 
ever before our eyes. But there are some countries where there arc 
no state prisons or jails, for the habits of the people are different from 
our own; they live by watching and attending flocks and herds; they 
frequently shift their position ; or if they do remain stationary, they 
have not the wealth to construct and maintain prisons and to beep 
criminals in confinement; accordingly their modes of punishment are 
different from ours. For small crimes the offender is beaten, and for 
large ones he is sold as a slave or is put to death. Such, sir, is the 
condition and the practice of Africans in Africa now. Such was the 
condition and practice of Africans in Africa before the slave trade was 
abolished in 1807 by act of Congress, which act took eflecl January 1st, 
1808. Although Africans have no prisons, still they are not exempt 
from crime. Urged by their evil passions and propensities, a predatory 
band of Africans made or make an inroad upon the possessions of a 
neighboring tribe, who are peaceably pursuing the lawful occupations 
of life, kill men, women and children, and violently carry off their 
flocks and their herds. This is repeated again and again. The injured 
tribe arouse and seek redress. They pursue, surprise and capture tho 



AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. 13 

marauding band. What now shall they do with their captives? They 
have plundered, and ravaged, and destroyed the property of their un- 
offending neighbors, and justice demands that they should make resti- 
tution, for it is just to give to every one his due, and it is due to the 
persons they have plundered that they should restore to them their 
property. But they have used, lost, or destroyed the plunder they 
unjustly took, and they own neither money, or flocks, or herds, and the 
lands that they own are wild and uncultivated, and the tribe that they 
robbed have more land than they want. What shall the captors do to 
obtain restitution and satisfaction ? Shall they kill the captives? Oh, 
no! that would be too cruel and severe, and no remuneration. Shall 
they beat them and let them go? That would afford no restitution. 
What shall tliey do ? Why, sir, they shall take, control, and employ 
that which the captives have got to give, and that is labor. Yes, sir, 
they make them labor, willing or unwilling. They become their slaves, 
and' thus they obtain restitution. And justly, too. And their being 
made slaves is subservient to the ends of justice, for other marauding 
bands hear of their punishment and are deterred from acts of violence 
and robbery. They are now the public property of the tribe. 
Private possession of them is obtained by distribution or 
purchase, under the direction of the Chief, the recognized head of 
the tribe. The men who have lost property, to whom a part of the 
captives are distributed, may already have more slaves than they want, 
or have no use for any at all, and therefore they sell them, and the 
money they receive is their remuneration for their loss. Those Avho 
purchased them have a right to sell them, for they are their property, 
— they paid their money for them. And this same mode of admin- 
istering justice and obtaining restitution is pursued by the Chief or 
acknowledged authority of different tribes toward their own people or 
subjects, when they have committed crimes for which restitution cannot 
be obtained in any other way than by controlling and compelling their 
involuntary service. When men for such causes and under such cir- 
cumstances are enslaved they are enslaved justly. Such was and such 
has been the practice in Africa for ages. Such was the practice when 
the slave trade was not forbidden in this country, and such is the prac- 
tice at the present day in Africa. But upon the supposition that all 
of them were stolen, does it follow that those "who now hold them hold 
them by a sinful title ? There is not, I venture to say, any inhabited 
land upon the face of the globe that was not once acquired by fraud or 
violence; and yet your principle would make every man who holds 
land, "no matter how many degrees removed," hold it by a sinful title ; 
and every man who holds goods purchased from fraudulent debtors or 
persons guilty of breach of trust, " no matter, how many degrees 
removed," or what time has elapsed, guilty of bidding by SLsinfiU title! 
Try this principle, bring it home to our merchants and our fire- 
sides. One of our grocers sends to New-York, and buys sugar and 
coffee, and molasses, and rice ; and another of our merchants goes and 
buys calico, and domestic and cotton goods — all the product of slave 



14 SLAVEIIOLDING NOT SINFUL '. 

labor or manufactured from it ; and the master of the slaves was paid and 
employed for his own use the money that was obtained from sinful labor. 
You go to the grocer or dry goods merchant and purchase his goods, jnst 
two or three removes from the M slave pens and cotton gins, and cotton 
fields and rice swamps of the South," the product, as you would say, of 
unjust aud unholy labor ; and the owner and proprietor of this unholy 
labor reaps the profits ; and unless you and thousands of others pur- 
chased the products of what you call unholy labor, his slaves would be 
worthless and he would soon get rid of them. But, Sir, you and thou- 
sands of others who purchase the product of slave labor, contribute to 
support the masters of these slaves who hold them by a " title of 
larceny, no matter how many degrees removed," as you say. And, 
Sir, I see but little difference between buying, selling, and using that which 
slaves have spent all their lives in producing, and the act of controlling 
the time aud labor of slaves. Therefore allow me to approach you with 
modesty, and pour into your ear a little moral suasion. My dear Sir, 
you must have conscientious scruples against holding a slave because you 
consider it a sin. Why not against using that which he has spent his time 
and labor in producing, for you say the slaves were acquired by wrong, 
and if they were acquired by wrong, then the product of their invol- 
untary labor and toil is acquired by wrong, by injustice, and sin. But 
we purchase the products that are acquired by wrong, injustice, and 
sin, and you say the receiver is as bad as the thief. No matter how 
many degrees removed the title is that of larceny. If the title to the slave 
is larceny, then, no matter how many degrees removed, why is not 
the title to the product of the labor that of larceny ; and those products, 
with the title of larceny, as follows from your assertion, we purchase 
and use. Are we not then, according to your assertion, as bad as those 
who control and compel the labor of slaves when we purchase and use 
that which the slaves spend all of their time in producing. And when 
you are invited out to tea, and the lady who presides over the destinies 
of the table inquires, " Do you take cream and sugar, Sir ?" then let con- 
science do its perfect work, and reply, in the spirit of true self-denying 
heroism, " a little cream, but no sugar, if you please, Madam." Those- 
who believe this and want to be free from guilt, should abstain from the 
production of slave labor, and confine themselves to penny-royal tea, 
sweetened with maple sugar ; smoke Pennsylvania sixes and oak-leaf 
segars, and dress in winter and summer in flannel shirts and linsey- 
woolsey garments. What would become of commerce and trade 2 — 
What would become of banks and store houses and ships if men be- 
lieve that things once acquired by wrong, no matter how many degrees 
removed, are held by wrong. 

But you also say that our ancestors for a trifle bought them of those 
who stole them, knowing- them to have been stolen. If you know 
that your ancestors did this I am perfectly willing that you should 
assert it of them; but I am not willing that you should assert it of 
icpstors who held slaves in North Carolina and in New-Jersey, 
a. i ; ■ :' ' i - ■• - •' . '• i» "iliev." v.'<' hold laws, ri the 



AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. 15 

South, without you have ample proof for so grave a charge ; it will 
not do to prove that some people knew it if others did not, for this is 
your language, it has a universality : — " The title of every slaveholder 
in the land to his human chattels is a title whose foundation rests on 
the blackest crime ;" and that blackest crime is, that they either stole 
them themselves or bought them knowing them to have been stolen. 
Now, Sir, you did not prove that they stole them, and I have shown 
that the mere fact of holding a man as a slave is not prima facie evi- 
dence that the man was stolen because he could be made a slave by 
other means than that of theft. 

And our ancestors knew all this as well as we do to-day, and prob- 
ably much better than we do, for we are not now employed in that 
foreign traffic, but they were employed in it when there was no law of 
the land against it ; when it was not a contraband trade ; and when it 
was conducted openly, and in the face of the world. Our ancestors 
well knew that ships sailed from the New England ports, and New- 
port in Rhode Island, particularly, and from Southern ports also, laden 
with gunpowder, with guns, with trinkets, with beads, with lookino-- 
glasses, with tobacco and segars, with New England rum, and with 
" Jersey lightning," perfectly legitimate articles of commerce, and that 
with these they bought Africans already slaves in their own country, 
where they could be tortured, and burnt, and sacrificed.* And 
they also knew that many of them were prisoners taken in war, 
such as I have described, and they knew that many of them were slaves 
as a punishment for crimes. And therefore, Sir, I say they did not 
know that they were stolen, and they purchased them justly. 

Our ancesters well knew the situation of the Africans. They beheld 
them as they were landed on our coast, naked barbarians, degraded 
and debased. And what did our ancestors do ? They put them to 
useful occupations ; they made them carpenters, masons, tailors and 
barbers ; and some are clergymen, and preach the words of Salvation to 
their fellow-slaves, and by the Gospel truth many have been brought 
out of darkness into marvellous light. And now compare them with 
the barbarians in Africa, and our slaves are far in advance in happiness, 
comfort and civilization. Do not, then, blacken the memory of our 
ancestors in order to sympathize with criminals, degraded, debased, 
enslaved and sold in their own country by the recognized authorities 
of the land. 

How, then, it may be asked, came our ancestors to pronounce, in 
1807, the slave trade man-stealing and piracy, and those engaged in 
it punishable with death ? This question is very easily answered. 
Our ancestors, both of Europe and America, discovered that the cupid- 
ity of the African Princes, and of the slave factors on the African coast, 
and of the owners and masters of vessels engaged in the slave trade, 
incited them to resort to unlawful means to obtain slaves. Accordingly 
f ■■ ' '■■' •■ '' " ■ . f ■ ''-•" f. 1 ■(> <V"vnvl «Toat i\vt(\ the supplv of slaves 
. .. . , ..,,■■■■■,, ■ . •,,..;.,.,! 



16 6LAVEII0LDING NOT SINFUL '. 

their subjects to bondage, or resorted to unjust wars to enslave men. I , 

As soon as our ancestors discovered this, and found that the title to 

the slaves was the robber's title, and that the Africans had been stolen, 

they pronounced the act piracy, punishable with death, and the act of 

Congress was passed in 1807 and took effect January 1st, 1808. And 

some twenty years previously, whilst the Constitution of our country 

was being- formed, a Committee, a majority of which was from Slave 

States, reported a section authorizing Congress to abolish the trade 

after the year 1800 ; but this period was extended until the year 1808 ; 

thus giving eight additional years to the traffic by the votes of ISew- 

Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut, whilst the vote of Virginia 

was against such extension. Thus the trade was continued by the votes 

of men from the New-England States, who there guarded the commercial >^ 

interest of their constituents and prolonged the traffic. This is a , 

matter of record. Had you said that some were stolen and were pu 
chased by those who knew they were stolen, I would readily admit 
that fact. J >nt how are we to point out who does and who does not 
hold his slave by a title of larceny derived from his father ? And if 
you can find any whose forefathers stole them before the passage of the 
law prohibiting the slave trade, I can show you that his title is not 
only secure, but founded upon the principles of eternal justice, and 
therefore just, and consequently not sinful. You have admitted that 
it is secure. But the law-breakers who entice slaves away and resist 
their recovery have rendered it insecure. 

But as you have admitted that the State ran if they have the power 
to enforce the law, render the title perfectly secure, I shall then proceed 
to show that thev can justly and of right render it secure. It is upon 
this principle : It is the design of all law to preserve society in a state 
of peace and quietness and harmony. Hence it has been said of law, 
by the excellent and learned Hooker, "Her seat is the bosom of God, 
her voice is the harmony of the world." And to preserve the harmony 
of society and to prevent property being held by an uncertain tenure, 
laws have been passed which make such property secure to the pos- 
sessor. Such laws being founded upon a just principle, cannot be unjust. 
And those who hold under them hold justly and without sin. And in 
the case of an African stolen, it may be that the person who stole him 
can never upon any consideration acquire a just title in him, resting 
solely upon possession, for it is a rule of law that no man has a right 
to take advantage of his own wrong. Yet should the man so stolen 
have offspring by a woman obtained justly, by purchase or otherwise, 
such offspring would of right be the property even of the man who had 
stolen the father of the child. For it is clearly shown in Pufendorf, 
book VI., chapter II., under the head of Parental Power, that the 
mother has the original right in the child, for it is nursed by her body, 
and after birth sustained by her care and nourishment, and because no 
one knows who is the father of the child but the mother, and when the 
marriage tie does not exist, she has the right to father it upon whom 
she pleases, and hence the Roman Law " Partus scquiter ventrem" the 



AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. {ft 

birth goes along with the bearer. This rule holds good in regard to 
•"domestic ananas and is founded upon the principle that the owner 
of the soil has a right to things planted in and grown upon it H e 
has also a right because he was deprived of the services of Z Lti 
during the period of gestation. The offspring t ^i us become 1th o ron' 

*K£& the maa wh0 st0,e the fatber! bui ^ ow-d^C; 

Let us come nearer home to exemplify our position Sur, 
pose that a person thinks that the Africans who were, Xsed Z 
him were purchased justly because he thought that they fad been 
enslaved tor crime, and that he holds some'of the survSoi s at the 

Km &c 7 in V'f t!m ? theyW ° U,d L — ived at that V Id 
inhrra, &c, in which condition you have admitted that it wou d be 

i SJp " WF'f *f aS jUSt ' t0 h ° ld them " s «'aves. And when a 

S 1S Pte !W * thG reqUeSt ° f the slave himseI «; A« 1 els held 
justly even though the man purchasing him knew he was s nl™ W 

his title not secure. But slaves are he?d in the South Ty Jul eh a 
tenure, and justly, too. Now hear what Dr. Wayland sa/s one 1 f ,! 
great guns of New-England, who has fired somellil inteG f Ui 
2 S'ec I' [ y p m 2 e 5i ^ f, '°T lliS ElG, ? ientS ° f M ° ral ^ience, Chap 
^"crabirpo'ssefsL ? 2»& ^^ce°ihT ^TV'!^ 
it will boll that while mere,y\h°e P la *s of ^ ^M^ 
any moral right to property, yet when these laws have once ass^neS 
^ to him this simple fact imposes a moral obligation upon aTotoer 
men to leave him in the undisturbed possession of it." Let tl e 

Relating to the internal traffic you say, " There is not a member of 

he clergy of North Carolina that dare to stand in his own pulpit to 

raise his voice against it." No, indeed, they do not dare to prench a 

OHSLR? S n * 8 'i tS ° f P ro P er ^thV follow the exa P , ;i e h of 
Chi ist an his apostles, who, you say on page eleven of your pamphlet 

counD Z 1 I7 terfere Whh any ° f the ^ -stitutiJns o'f he 
country They hold no commission to do any such thing. As it re- 
gards the separation of husband and wife, this is dail/praclLd at 
the North f 0r cn and it . ldom done » o s]aves ^ygS » 

ment. There are laws restricting the separation of mother and c il 

Sltsi H r nte ;i' has lately bcen fined ^ oo ° - SMS 

slaves sinfuP'nVf^ t ° U 3Sk are f lu,tei 7 and forai ^ion among 
s aves total or not ? I answer yes ; but there is Jess of it amon^ 
slave , f b]aek the Nortli _ Look ^ t i among 

?W T S ' ChaptGr V "' table LXXI - Therc you will find In 

SaesTr 01 'f/ ree , mU,att0eS t]ia ^here are free blacks in the F ree 
States, and as the white people of the North do not marry blacks these 



18 SLAVEHOLDING NOT SINFUL : 

mulattoes must have been born out of wedlock. In the South, on the 
contrary, there is only one mulatto to twelve slaves. Look at New-York, 
also with its tens of thousands of public prostitutes, besides the private 
ones, and compare this with the proverbial virtue of the white women of 
our Southern States. The white men of the North have had something to 
do with all this ; let them cleanse their skirts first. " Let them cast out 
the beam that is in their own eye, and then they may see clearly to cast 
out the mote that is in their Southern brother's eye." Compare the 
Northern brothels with the harems of the South, with which you seem 
to be so familiar, and to which you on your fifth page ask Dr. How to 
accompany you. For shame, Mr. Van Dyke, to ask honest men to go 
with you to such places. Compare them, I say, and if the Magdalen re- 
ports are to be believed, the brothels of New York City equal in number 
all the harems of the cities of the South. Certainly these crimes are a sin, 
but, because these sins are encouraged, it is no reason to prove the owner 
holds his slave by a sinful title ; much less does it prove that those who do 
not encourage such practices, hold their slaves by a sinful title. Dr. How 
condemns the law forbidding to teach a slave to read. This law was 
passed out of motives of safety to the State, as abolitionists circulated 
incendiary pamphlets, calculated to excite the slaves to discontent and 
revolt. Yet they had better be repealed, for with all the efforts of 
abolitionists to assist and entice them, only one thousand and eleven 
ran away from their masters in the year 1850. [Census returns, table 
XLIV.) You next speak of the law rendering a slave incapable of tes- 
tifying in a court of justice against his master in a case of murder. 
Neither is a deserter permitted in the army to give evidence ; neither 
is a state prisoner who has served out his time ; neither should the 
Africans who were sold into slavery on account of crime — and our fore- 
fathers knew that many were enslaved for crime, and those that were 
not, they could not point out. Therefore it was safe and expedient 
for them to pass laws making them incapable of testifying in a court 
of justice. And for this reason also, the. Africans were ignorant idol- 
worshippers, who had no idea of a future state of punishment, or of the 
criminality of a lie ; neither do their children have any regard for 
truth. Besides this, a master might exhibit an unlawful influence over 
his slave, and thus force him to pervert the truth. Besides it is a 
rare occurrence for a master to kill or to suffer his slave to be killed ; 
they are not such fools as to destroy their own property worth $1,000 
or $1200 each ; and if they do, there is circumstantial evidence to convict, 
and lawyers say that men will lie, but circumstances do not. 

You say that the abuses of power are a part and parcel of the system 
of slavery, and inseparable from it. This you assert but have not 
proved. I deny the truth of the assertion. Tower is not always 
abused. All masters do not abuse their slaves, and therefore abuse is 
separable from the system of slavery. Bad men abuse ; good men do 
not. The abuse arises from the character and disposition of the mas- 
ter, not from the system, for in the systems of American slavery are 
embodied laws forbidding and punishing cruelty to slaves. But you 



AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DTKE, ESQ. jg 

say that the crimes "are done in accordance with law." Please produr* 
the laws that command and enforce them. 

_ The whole of your eighth and part of your ninth pao-es are filled 
with arguments to prove by the Golden Rule of our Saviour that it is 
asm to hold men in bondage if held unjustly. Dr. How does not 
deny this in his argument. But I am sure that he never would admit 
the truth of this assertion of yours, to wit, "that we should do no 
injury to or impose any burden on our brother man that we would be 
unwilling to receive from him." Here you make the will of the man 
who receives injury or has a burden imposed on him, the test of rio-ht 
and wrong. Accordingly, a father says to his son " Go to the Bank of 
New-Jersey and bring me one of Mr. Van Dyke's famous pamphlets." 

It t 7 *2* } W T fc ; I T Hnt t0 Sp | n ^ t0 P-" And because he does not 
want to, therefore he ought not. Is that your reasoning ? A citizen 
has a just and lawful tax imposed upon him, but says I will not pay it 
is that a good reason that he ought not to pay it ? No. He must 
show to the appellate court that the tax is unjust, and not make his will 
the rule in the matter. And, on the other hand, ought I to do nothing 
to another that I would not have another to do to me? Ouo-ht our 
soldiers upon the field of battle refuse to shoot down the opposing 
ranks of the enemy because they do not want the enemy to shoot them 
down ? Such a manner of action would be ridiculous ; and yet vou 
record it in your code of morals. Ought a master let his slave o-o free 
because he does not want to be a slave himself? 

At the middle of your ninth page, you write thus :— " I think that I 
neither mistake or misrepresent your position when I say that your 
justification of slaveholding in this country, is based entirely and exclu- 
sively on the fact that slaveholding as it was practised amono- the 
Hebrews, was never directly condemned by God himself nor by any 
one who it is conceded spoke by his authority ; on the contrary as 
you contend, it received their sanction." Dr. How's argument was 
based upon the fact that God not only sanctioned slavery amono- the 
Hebrews, but also that he sanctioned the master's rio-ht to his slave 
the whole earth over where the holding of a slave is n°ot forbidden by 
law ; by God s enumeration of man-servants and maid-servants as prop 
erty— in the catalogue of property that he gives in the tenth command- 
ment, winch command is of universal binding force, and not confined 
to the Hebrews alone ; and also upon the fact that Christ said of the 
slaveholding Roman Centurion— "I have not seen so great faith— no 
not in Israel," and also upon the fact that the apostles sanctioned slave- 
holding under the Roman Law ; and that God had commanded the 
Israelites the first year upon their journey to the promised land then 
poor and having no slaves to purchase slaves of the heathen nations 
that were around them, when they had settled in the promised land 
And it these heathen nations (as you say we do) held these slaves by a 
title of larceny, God must have sustained this title of larceny and con- - 
maiided his people to purchase of men-stealers. But God never did any 
such thing ; he recognized the right to hold slaves among the Hebrews 

B2 



2Q SLAVEHOLDING NOT SINFUL*. 

amoi.o- the heathen nations, among the Romans, and all over the earth, 
when not contrary to the laws of the land, as shown by his tenth com- 
mand wlierein he enumerates men-servants and maid-servants as prop- 
erty ' There is a strong analogy between Hebrew slavery and Ameri- 
can slavery. Both negro slaves, and slaves held by Hebrews, were ac- 
quired by purchases and as captives enslaved for punishment of crimes, 
and even a Hebrew bv birth could be held in perpetual bondage, con- 
trary to vour assertion that he could not. (See Ex^ xxi. ; 2—6.) And 
your assertion that the practice of condemning to slavery prisoners of 
war has long since been abandoned, is not true, for it is not abandoned 
by uncivilized nations, particularly African nations, yet I do not 
attempt to iustify enslaving prisoners of war, unless the prisoners 
had previously committed, or aided and abetted in committing, 
a deed " worthy of death," or an act for which restitution could be ob- 
tained in no other way. (VattelVs Law of Nations-bock 3rd, chapter 
8th sec. 153.) And that the Israelites (who you call Hebrews) 'had 
no 'nation or race of men about them doomed to slavery as a matter ot 
course, on account of their nation or race," is flatly contradicted in 
Joshua ix - 23—21 ; where, speaking of the Gibeonites, the text reads 
as follows :— " Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers 
of water for the congregation and for the altar of the Lord, even unto 
this day "—condemned quite as much to slavery " as a matter of course 
rt s Africans have been condemned to slavery " as a matter of course. 

On vour tenth page you say, but "suppose we admit ior the sake 
of argument that the Almighty, for reasons of his own, permitted 
Slavery among his chosen people without reproof, does it follow as a 
matter of course that we can without sin practice the same? by no 
mean* Sir ! Bttt it does follow that when God has sanctioned any aet, 
has prescribed rules acknowledging the legality of that act, never con- 
demned that act, or restricted us to any other kind of act or conduct, 
that then we can without sin, and justly too, perform that act. _ 

God has sanctioned slavery ; he has prescribed rules acknowledging 
the legality of the master's title ; he never condemned the holding ot 
a slave! neither has he restricted us to free or voluntary labor. Does 
this hold true of the other acts that you speak of. God has permitted 
polygamy but never sanctioned it ; he has forbidden multiplying j 
wives and has restricted us to one wife at a time. He has permitted I 
Lying, but never sanctioned it ; but he has said that "all liars sha II have 
their portion in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. He also 
si ruck Annanias and Sapphira dead for telling a lie, and has restricted 
us to the truth in our conversation and practice. 

And Sir, I would have rested with showing the distinction between 
a permission; and a sanction, had it not been that you had presented 
Abraham in tl e light of performing acts that are now reprobated ant 
Oond< mned. That be had wives and concubines is all very true ; and 
•j-n 1 ose it was a sin for him to have them, does it follow that leeauso 
God 1 emitted him to have them that he sanctioned it, and that there- 
fore we should have them now. Even if God did sanction it then, 



AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. £1 

he has forbidden it now. Or suppose it was a great sin, it only shows 
that Abraham was a fallen man as well as ourselves. All of us com- 
mit crimes, and because we are not immediately punished-, or never 
punished because we repent, does that show that God sanctions our 
■crimes, and that those who see us do it with impunity, can, without sin, 
be guilty of the same acts. By no means. Of the sin of lying, in its 
broad sense, Abraham was not guilty, although lie was guilty of decep- 
tion, and his deceit brought with it his punishment, for the trouble 1:0 
was trying to avoid befell him through his deception. Who Sarah's 
natural father was is a matter of doubt. The first place where she is 
spoken of having any other relation than a husband, {Ex. xi. : 29} 
'Terah, Abraham's father, is said to be her father-in-law, (Ex. xi. : 31) 
consequently, she could, with truth, call Terah father, and Terah calj 
her daughter, and Abraham therefore call her sister as well as wife ; al- 
though she was not his natural sister, this would, in one sense, be true. 
Others suppose that she was Abraham's niece, that Sarah was the 
daughter of Abraham's brother, consequently she was the grand- 
daughter of Abraham's father. Abraham's brother is known to have 
died, and Sarah went into the family of her grandfather, who supported 
her, and hence was called her father, and Abraham's sister, although 
his wife and niece. Men differ in opinions. Let us have Abraham's ac- 
count of the matter {Gen. xx. : 12 — " Yet indeed she is my sister, she is 
the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother, and 
she became my wife." According to this she was Abraham's half-sister. 
Now let us see what becomes of your charge that if he did not lie he 
was guilty of incest, and that the Messiah came from an incestuous 
origin. What is now called incest, and considered a crime, was not 
forbidden as yet by God's law. The command against marry- 
ing near relations was first promulgated after the Exodus of the Israel- 
ites, (Lev. xviii. : 1 — 18.) It is also held by the best writer on natural 
law, that to marry a sister is not contrary to the laws of nature, but 
that it is unlawful because contrary to civil enactment founded upon 
God's levitical command, for which there are very good reasons. All 
of Adam's children who married, married their sisters. God com- 
manded them to increase and multiply. How could they obey this com- 
mand unless they married their sisters? and do you think God would 
command them to do a thing contrary to nature? No, Sir, by no 
means. 

But it may be said that it is a physiological fact that the offspring 
of such unions are diseased or idiotic. I deny that such is a physio- 
logical fact, unless the parties are diseased, and thus the disease contin- 
ued and aggravated in the offspring by such a union. A like result 
occurs when persons who have no blood relation whatever to each 
other marry. But those who assert that idiocy and disease result of 
necessity from a law of nature to the children because they are the 
offspring of the union of brother and sister or near relations, whether 
diseased or not, will please to prove the assertion, and they have these 
facts to stare them in the face. Cain must have married his own sis- 



22 SLAVEHOLDING NOT SINFUL '. 

ter ; his son Enoch builded a city and never saw death, for God took 
him. Methuselah, Enoch's son, lived 969 years, the oldest man on 
record. Isaac, the result of the union of Sarah and Abraham, was no 
fool or imbecile, although he was bom when Sarah and Abraham were 
old and well stricken in years ; and Isaac begat Jacob the father of the 
Patriarchs, and he wrestled with an angel and the angel prevailed 
not. But it may be objected there is scrofula or "kings' 
evil" that befel the offspring of a royal family who married with rela- 
tions. Please to prove that it originated from the marrying of rela- 
tions. That it was continued and aggravated by the marriages is very 
probable. God has prohibited such marriages, and there are manv 
other good reasons why they should be prohibited. 

At the time Abraham married his half-sister or niece, there was no 
command of God against it. There was no command then, so far as 
we know, and there is no command now against marrying a niece. And 
to make the worst of it he only married his half sister, which it is true 
is forbidden by the levitical law. [Lev. xviii. : 9.) But there was 
no law then forbidding it. And because there is a law of God forbid- 
ding it now, therefore we cannot plead the example of Abraham to justify 
incest. But there is no law of God now, or ever has been, forbidding 
the holding of a slave, and therefore to hold a slave is not a sin, for 
"when there is no law, there is no transgression." As to Abraham's 
having an illegitimate child by Hagar in the " lifetime of his wife," how 
do you know the child was illegitimate ? Were there any laws of the 
land pronouncing such children illegitimate ? On the contrary, the 
laws and customs of the land permitted concubinage and polygamy. And 
how do you know that children born out of wedlock, were pronounced 
by the law illegitimate ? I hold you to the strict legal sense of the 
term illegitimate. You in your indictment present Abraham before 
the jury of the people, wherever your pamphlet has circulated, charged 
in manner and form with lying, or with incest, and with having an ille- 
gitimate child. 

I have shown that he did not tell a palpable lie, but admit that he 
was guilty of deception, for which he was punished. That he was not 
guilty of incest is clear, as there was no law against marrying a half- 
sister — and it was not contrary to the law of nature. Neither was 
there any law that pronounced a child born out of wedlock illegitimate. 
Therefore by the law of the land the child was not illegitimate I 
I will leave it to the public to give their verdict if you have proved 
Abraham guilty of the crimes in the manner and form charged. 
Thus, Sir, I think 1 have removed the flimsy mantle you have cast over 
the character of Abraham ; soon I will come to Paul. 

Again Sir, you say "It seems that the Israelites after their delive- 
rance from Egypt, were permitted and required to kill, to destroy, and 
to drive out the nations and tribes inhabiting the land of Canaan, &c." 

You say God required them to do so. If God requires us to da 
this to other nations, it will be just and right, "for he ruleth over the 
armies of heaven and the inhabitants of the earth, and none can stay 



AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. 23 

his hand, or say unto him what doeth Thou?" But we mu3t be 
very sure he commands it ; nothing short of miracles should convince 
us. Another assertion of yours is "that although God permitted 
the Israelites to hold slaves, such was not the Divine pleasure when 
the Israelites were enslaved and oppressed by the Egyptians." These 
are the reasons why God punished the Egyptians ; it was because after the 
land of Goshen had been given to the Israelites and Joseph was dead, 
Pharoah who knew not Joseph, made slaves of the free Israelites with- 
out provocation or cause, and out of jealousy slew the first-born. Then 
it was after a lapse of time that God sent Moses who showed Pharoah 
miracles to establish his authority from God to demand of him that 
he should let the Israelites go. Had Pharoah obeyed the command he 
would not have been punished, but he made a direct issue with God, 
4fcl said, (Ex. v. : 2.)—" Who is the Lord that I should obey his 
voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel 
go!" The Israelites were not of right the slaves; and Pharoah 
denied God's authority : for this they Avere plagued, and God brought 
them out with a strong hand. Here Sir, you have brought to a close 
all that you have to say in regard to proofs from the Old Testament. 
And now, Sir, the Gospel and Epistles are to afford a fair field for 
you to display your skill in hermaneutics. Why do you not try your acu- 
men upon 1 "Timothy, vi. : 1 — 5. Is that too strong meat to digest, or 
is the rebuke it conveys to them who teach otherwise, too harsh music 
for your ears. 

1. 1 Tim. vi. : 1 — 5 : " Let as many servants as are under the yoke 
count their own masters worthy of all honor,- that the name of God 
and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing 
masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren ; but 
rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers 
of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach 
otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness ; 
he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of 
words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil sur mi sings, perverse 
disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, sup- 
posing that gain is godliness : from such withdraw thyself." 

This you will have nothing to do with, but you proceed to address 
Dr. How thus : " All you have proved or can prove from the New- 
Testament, are the facts that servitude was found to exist in those 
times, that neither Christ or any of his apostles in direct terms con- 
demned the institution, but on the contrary admonished those connect- 
ed therewith, either as master or servant, to perform with faithfulness 
the duties which the laws of the institution required. It is not pre- 
tended that they approved of it in any other way than this." 

It is pretended and proved, also, that Christ sanctioned the 
holding of slaves, and recognized men servants and maid servants in 
the Tenth Commandment. But let us quote from Dr. How's argu- 
ment. 



24 SLAVEHOLDING NOT SINFUL : 

" 1. Our first remark is, tliat Christ and his Apostles in the strongest 
manner assert the divine inspiration and binding authority of Moses 
and the Prophets, that is, of the Old Testament Scriptures. On this 
point there was no dispute between them and the Jews. It was Jesus 
Christ the Son of God who gave to the Israelites their laws in the 
wilderness, and who spake by his spirit in the prophets,* who was 
again visibly present among the Jews in the humble form of the Man 
of Nazareth, explaining and enforcing the laws which he had before 
given to them. The Law of Ten Commandments is referred to and 
argued from by both Christ and his Apostles, as the Law of God of 
universal and perpetual obligation, and consequently the tenth com- 
mand is in as full force at the present day as when it was first given, 
and the right of the master to his man-servant and maid-servant re- 
mains as strong as at the first. Moreover, all true believers in Chrifc 
are children of Abraham, and so under and interested in the Covenant 
which God made with him. ' Know ye, therefore,' says the Apostle, 
' that they which are of faith the same are the children of Abraham. 
. . . . So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful 
Abraham. . . . If ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and 
heirs according to the promise. (Gal. iii.: 7, 9, 29.) It is under that 
covenant which God made with Abraham to be a God to him and to 
his seed after him, and of which circumcision, before the death of 
Christ, was the sign, and baptism now is and lias been since his death, 
that the visible Church is now placed, and believing masters with their 
believing slaves are now as they ever have been entitled to the sign 
and privileges of the covenant.' " 

You instance the fact that "Christ and his Apostles never inter- 
fered with the legal institutions of the land," but permitted them to 
exist. Their language was: "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of 
man, the powers that be are ordained of God." But it would be very 
wrong to infer from this that God sanctioned injustice, although he 
sanctioned the necessity and propriety of just government and ordained 
power in the hand of the civil magistrate. God has granted power 
and ordained relative duties. His commands are : " Wives be obedi- 
ent to your husbands: husbands love your wives; children obey your 
parents ; parents provoke not your children to anger ; servants be 
obedient to your masters ; masters render to your servants things just 
and equal." 

You represent Christianity with its benign influence as having 
abolished the relation of master and slave in many parts of Christen- 
dom. Is this a fixed fact, or is it only an assertion ? Is not Christian- 
ity as pure in these states as it is in Europe or in Great Britain ? If 
Christianity has abolished negro slavery in those countries, why did it 
not abolish the abject oppression of the down-trodden European 
nations ? or is there something peculiar in the African race for which 
they should have special privileges ? Christianity does not abolish the 
relation of master and slave. It prevents men from becoming slaves 
to their passions and appetites, and thus prevents them becoming slaves 



AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. 



25 



to men. It elevates them in the condition of master and slave, and 
makes the master more kind and the slave more faithful. Christianity 
does not abolish the just right of the master to his slave. Show me 
the command if it does ? Read what Dr. How says on the 28th page 
of his argument of the beneficial effects of Christianity on the master 
and slave. Please also to prove that it was Christianity that abolished 
negro slavery in Europe and Great Britain. 

Your assertion that Dr. How based a portion of his argument 
"that to hold a slave is not a sin," upon the ground "That inasmuch 
as they knew of it, and spoke of it, and did not condemn it, therefore 
they must have approved of it," cannot in truth be founded on Dr. 
How's words. Dr. How proves that they did not condemn it. This I 
have shown several times ; but to repeat only once : He adduced the 
enumeration of slaves as property in the command as a sanction, and 
proved that Clirist enforced the binding authority of the Tenth 
Commandment ; also by doing this Christ sanctioned the holding of 
slaves as property, but Christ never sanctioned injustice, although 
he may have permitted the Roman Tribunals to act unjustly, yet Christ 
condemned the unjust judge and injustice of all kinds. 

And now we come to a false, ridiculous and wonderful statement 
and comparison, and it is difficult to tell whether it is more ridiculous 
than it is untrue. Dr. How brought up the tenth command, which is 
of universal application at all times and in all countries where God's 
word is read and preached, to show that in that command God recog- 
nized man-servants and maid-servants as property, and that thus he 
sanctioned the right to hold slaves. You say, addressing Dr. How, 
"But you seem to have made one other discovery, new, if not useful, 
more strange if* possible than the others, and that is, that the ' aboli- 
tionists ' of the General Synod are utterly crushed and confounded by 
the command 'Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's man-servant, nor 
his maid-servant, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's,' which you ac- 
company with a dissertation on the rights of property ; but what this 
has to do with the case is more than I can tell." Now, my dear sir, 
you yourself seem, if not crushed, at least to be confounded ; or, to use 
an appropriate but inelegant word, "dumbfounded." Is it possible 
that the eyes of your mind were so obscured as not to be able to per- 
ceive and to understand that Dr. How used this command to show that 
when God enumerated house and wife, man-servant and maid-servant, 
ox or ass, or any thing belonging to our neighbors, that he recognized 
man-servant and maid-servant as belonging to our neighbor — his prop- 
erty, to which he has a right. Dr. How did not charge that the abo- 
litionists coveted the slaves of the North Carolina brethren ; but that 
if they said that man-servants and maid-servants were not rightful, 
God-recognized property, then they go right contrary to God's revealed 
word. For some reason you did not see this : perhaps you did not 
want to. But it is not too late to see it now. 

After this oversight you relate an incident that occurred sbme 
years ago, in which I happened to be an actor. I refer to the robbery 



26 SLAVEHOLDING NOT SINFUL! 

at my father's, for I believe it is Dr. How's house that you refer to ; 
there being no robbery of any other gentleman's house "not far 
from our City, in which act the burglars were arrested, and carried to 
prison," as far as my memory recalls. And I infer that it is that in- 
cident from the fact that I have heard you tell the same story before, 
and because it is generally believed that you refer to that occasion. 
But details of the occurrence are so devoid of fact, that were it not for 
the nearness to our City, and the fact of the thieves being caught, it 
would be impossible to know what burglary, or what parties you refer 
to. You ask if Dr. How coveted the pistols when he took them away ! 
They had but one pistol, although they had knives, and the pistol and 
knives the Sheriff took before Dr. How had seen the burglars; neither 
did he buy a pair of pistols. So you see that he neither coveted the 
pistols, nor took away their pistols, or had they a pair loaded to the 
muzzles to take away, nor did Dr. How buy a pair of pistols. Now 
did you invent this or was it told you ? If it was told you, you should 
have recollected what every tyro at the bar knows that it is dangerous 
to rely upon '• hearsay evidence." What was your object ? Was it to 
ridicule Dr. How? If so, your ridicule has recoiled upon yourself, for 
in relating this incident, you have exhibited a most laughable misun- 
derstanding of Dr. How's application of the tenth command. 

You say that you cannot see how the fact that because the Israelites 
(or Hebrews as you call them) treated their slaves better than 
the heathen and other nations strengthens the argument in favor 
of the American "evil!" Dr. How is speaking of the reasons for 
God permitting slavery ; and it is easy to be seen that to purchase 
a slave from a heathen master who treated him cruelly was a 
great blessing, besides he became an heir to God f s. covenant by 
circumcision. Thus, when slaves were brought from barbarous, idola- 
trous Africa, where they were already in bondage, it is evident that the 
condition of being slaves in the United States was better than to be 
slaves in Africa; for respect for God's word, and the observance of the 
Sabbath, had a tendency to soften the rigor of the master and to civil- 
ize the slave, and that therefore if we really sympathize with slaves in 
North Carolina or in the South, we should extend the right hand of 
fellowship to their masters; and that by "supporting, sustaining, and 
giving aid and comfort" to Christianity at the South, we supported, 
sustained, and gave aid and comfort, "in all its length and breadth," 
to the sublime and humanizing system of pure Christianity ; which by 
subduing the evil passions of their nature caused masters to give to 
their slaves "that which is just and equal," and the slaves to render 
cheerfully to their masters that which was due; instead of turning their 
backs on their Southern Christian brethren, and turning up their eyes 
to heaven, with sanctimonious fervor, exclaiming "Lord, I thank thee 
that I am not as other men are," slaveholders, " unjust, adulterers," or 
even as these North Carolinians. 

You assert that Dr. How gives no reason for the permission by God 
of slaveholding, but only some good rules for its regulation; "but, 



AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. 27 

sad to say, the poor, powerless, friendless slave of this ' glorious Union,' 
has no such protection from the law. The master or his minions may 
smite out one of his eyes or both of them," or treat him with whatever 
cruelty he chooses, and yet "the victim is h's slave forever." This you 
state for fact. Let us see if Dr. How did not give reasons for the per- 
mission of slaveholding. 

His first reason was, that slavery is one of the bitter effects of the 
fall. There are several bitter effects of the fall. One bitter effect of 
the fall is, that men must be punished when they wrong their neighbor 
in order to assert the majesty of the law, to obtain from them satisfac- 
tion or restitution, to deter them from breaking law again, and to deter 
others from the commission of like acts. This is the effect that Dr. 
How spoke of. It is a penal effect of the fall. God sentenced men to 
slavery to punish crime. He cursed Canaan for crime to slavery, 
and the curse was carried out when the Israelites held Canaanites in 
bondage. Few will deny that it is right to deprive men of their liberty 
and confine them in jails and prisons because they have forfeited a 
right to liberty by crime. Why dispute then that it is right to enslave 
men and make them labor for the benefit of others, when there is no 
other suitable mode of punishment, as I have shown some pages back. 
It was a bitter penal effect of the fall. This was Dr. How's first reason. 

His second reason why God permitted his people to hold slaves 
was, because they had more privileges under His law than they had 
when slaves to idolaters. This was for the advantage of the slave who 
would have been a slave among the heathen, if he had not had one of 
God's covenant people for a master. 

His third reason was, that God permitted it because he did not 
consider it a sin to hold a slave, and no where made it a test of 
church-membership. 

All of these reasons will apply for the permission of holding slaves 
in the United States to-day. And now as to your charge that the 
reasons exist in this country to regulate the "evil, but the regulations 
are nowhere to be found." That a master can treat a slave with 
whatsoever cruelty he pleases, " yet he shall be a slave forever ;" I ask, 
do you state this for fact? There are a number of laws protecting the 
slave in this country. As I have not the Southern State Statutes, I 
cannot quote many, but here are two that contradict your charge. The 
first is from Bouvier's Law Dictionary, under the head of Cruelty to 
Slaves. I quote from that book: "By the Civil Code of Louisiana, 
Act 192, it is enacted that when a master shall be convicted of cruel 
treatment to his slave, the judge may pronounce, beside the penalty 
established for such cases, that the slave shall be sold at public auction. 
in order to place him out of the reach of the power of his master who 
has abused him." And I quote from the New- York Herald a state- 
ment that I have seen in several papers, which you can now read : — 

" Louisiana Slave Laws — A man named Hunter has been fined $1,000, and forfeited 
six slaves at New-Orleans, for selling them in such a manner as to separate mother and 
child, contrary to the laws of Louisiana," 



28 SLAVEIIOLDINO NOT SINFUL : 

Thus it appears & master cannot abuse his slave and "humanity 
shu 1 ler only, yet he is his slave forever," and that there are laws to 
punish cruelty, and that they are enforce.!. I am not a lawyer, there- 
fore I am not to be expected to quote "line upon line, and precept upon 
precept, here a little and there a little/' but I am sure that a lawyer 
ouodit to know something of the Statute Laws of the country in which 
he lives ; especially when he has been to Congress. 

On page fourteen, you say it is fair to presume that one of the 
regulations of Jewish servitude was the right of the servant to leave 
the service of his master when cruely treated. Compare this pre- 
sumption with (1. Peter, ii. : 18-21.) And if there were any such 
regulations, the Apostle does not tell slaves to take advantage of them, 
but to " take it patiently." 

As to the Fugitive Slave Law, we are not discussing that, neither 
are we discussing the right of a father to pursue his fugitive son and 
to prosecute those who harbor him. All that Dr. How attempted to 
prove was that to hold a slave was not a sin, and this assertion of his 
you have yourself admitted to be true in two places in your reply : 
First, when you speak of the " old and worn out slaves," and next 
when you say that God sanctioned slaveholding by Abraham. 

And now we come to the •' flimsy mantle" of Paul, as we have al- 
ready disposed of that of Abraham. You assert that Dr. How did 
not find in Paul's epistle to Philemon that Onesimus " ran away from 
his master." Whether he ran away, or walked away, is not material, 
— certain it is that "he departed for a season," [Phil. : 1-5,) and Paul 
seemed to be in doubt as to the manner in which Philemon would 
treat Onesimus when he was sent back. He knew that the master 
had power to punish fugitive slaves, not only with scourges, but with 
death, (.Ja,vsn%l vi : 219.) accordingly he used this language. [Phil.: 
8-9.) "Wherefore, though I might be much bold in Christ to enjoin 
thee that which is convenient, yet for love's sake, I rather beseech thee" 
(15,) "for perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou 
shouldst receive him forever" (that is as long as he lived). But you 
say that he was now the "converted Christian, and was to be thence- 
forth not the servant or slave of any man." According to this then, you 
hold that when a slave becomes a Christian, he was to cease to be a 
slave. How does this agree with what you say on page eleven ? I quote 
your words : " Christ and his Apostles never attempted to interfere with 
any of the legal enactments of the country." But here we find that 
you make Paul interfere Avith the legal enactments of the country, and 
set Onesimus free. Now which assertion is true? Did St Paul who 
was an Apostle set Onesimus free, because he had become a converted 
Christian, and thus interfere with the legal enactments of the country ? 
Or did Christ and his Apostles never interfere with the legal enact- 
ments of the country ? Which assertion do you take ? What do you 
say? This uncertainty in your statement forcibly reminds me of the 
story of the old woman who was going to tell one of her friends how 
to judge of good indigo, or " blueing " as shecalled it. Now, said she, 



29 
AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. 

« 5 1 von want to mtee of good blueing, you must take the « blueing " jjri 
"I y M Si t itb t e asVevtion that " Christ and his Apostles never at- 

thev are faithful and beloved partakers of the benefit. But *«PP™° 
t5 y i in ,, l.im free because he was a converted Christian, onl> con 

tne iaiuei ■ ui s accomplish m Aii.ca 

£f1 Smk t at s jvScation enough, unless Americans are ,o have 
t 's rlnts *id [fewer privileges than Hebrews, Israelites an d Jews 

Do yo despise America f Do you hate and spit upon the "Umon I 
WhospTead blight and mildew in Africa, if it does exist there? ■ » 
„U?X«?ttm«fe« / The country is luxunously r.ch, but the 



30 SLAVEHOLDING NOT SINFUL '. 

people are depraved. From before the building of the Pyramids 
African has enslaved African, and Africans now enslave Africans. 
White men bought them already enslaved at home and brought them 
here as slaves. You also say, "Threatening disunion, violence and 
civil war among the States." Let the Southerners live in the enjoyment 
of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and you will never hear 
of disunion, violence and civil war among the States. The cause of 
all of these evils, whether existing, threatened, or imagined, you 
charge upon the slaveholders and our glorious nation, and finish your 
tirade with asserting that we are "a bye-word and a reproach in the 
face of the civilized world." Your sympathies are always against the 
land of your birth. Is this the patriotism you boast? Is this the 
precept and the practice you pursue ? You would withdraw our army 
when they had gained the Aztec Capital. They had done nobly, and 
had borne our country's flag aloft 'mid toil, disease and death : 

"At Cerro Gordo, through the storm of bullets they had trod, 
At Cherubusco's flaming fight they bathed the field with blood, 
And they had conquered everywhere where they had 6truck a blow, 
And victors stood within the walls of haughty Mexico. 1 ' 

Mothers and wives, sweethearts and sisters' bosoms glowed with 
pride for them. But there was danger yet; they were but tens, the 
foemen thousands ; their ships were far away upon the Gulf, the haughty 
foe unhumbled — scarce deigned to sue for peace. Then you stood up 
in Congress, in your place, and there betrayed the trust that Jerseymeri 
reposed in you, and sympathized with Mexicans whose tender mercies 
had been shown at Goliad, the Alamo and Santa Fe. They had com- 
menced the war : 

" Upon our soil they murdered the gallant Colonel Cross, 
And Thornton's small command sustained a heavy loss," 

and now they offered no indemnity ; you would withdraw our army then. 
And now you stand and charge the crimes of Africa upon our land, and 
sympathize with nations foreign to our soil — with proud, imperious Eng- 
land, whose crowned head drew revenue from that same trade they scoff 
atnow ; who paid no heed to Georgiaand Virginia when they prayed to 
have the traffic stopped. But you must join with Britons and the 
foreign crowd who grind and trample white men in the dust.* Is this 
your love of country ? Away with such ! Here are your resolutions, 
let us see what was thought of them : — 

The following are the resolutions of Mr. Van Dyke — his "unmag- 
nanimous resolutions" — from the New-Brunswick Times, Dec. 29, 1847 : 

Resolved, That in the opinion of this House, the order of the Government that Gen. 
Taylor, witli his army, should take position on the hank of the Rio Grande, which result- 
ed in the blockade of that river and the pointing of the guns of the United States upon 
a Mexican town on the other side, was unnecessary and unwise— was an act of aggression 
within itself, and the immediate cause of conflict between the two nations. 

* Sec the White Slaves of England, by Cobdcn, 



AN ANSWER TO JOHN TAN DYKE, ESQ. 31 

Resolved, That the invasion of Mexican Territories south and west of the Rio Grande, 
either by sea or by land, and the storming or capturing of her towns, and the slaying of 
the people within such territories, are acts of injustice, cruelty and wrong ; and tuat the 
requiring of Mexico, at the peril of her national existence to enter into treaty or stipula- 
tion with us while her country is surrounded by our navy, her capital and chief towns in 
our possession, her country subjugated, and her people crushed and prostrated beneath 
our power, and with our resistless cannon frowning upon her, and our conquering sword 
gleaming above her, is unreasonable and unfair towards Mexico as one of the contracting 
powers, and unmagnanimous and unchristian in us. 

Resolved, That the present war w ith Mexico should not be prosecuted any further for 
any purpose whatever,— that the whole of our forces in the Mexican country should be 
withdrawn as quickly as possible, and placed on territory which belongs to this country, 
and that the administration be furnished with all the men and money necessary to protect 
our troops now in Mexico, and to accomplish such withdrawal in the most practical way, 
and without harm or danger. 

Resolved, That after the withdrawal of our troops aforesaid, east of the Rio Grande, 
the President of the United States be requested to send a commissioner or commissioners, 
to Mexico to settle the question of boundary, with such other questions as may probably 
come before them as a committee. 

I will insert the notice made at that time in the Trenton Daily 
News, entitled 

" A VOICE FROM MEXICO." 
" We mean no disrespect to the Hon. John Van Dyke, of the third district, when we 
allege that the resolutions which he had the temerity to submit to Congress, and which 
we give below, may be regarded both in letter and spirit the general voice of Mexico. — 
They contain the same violent crimination of the United States, and the same warm 
sympathies for the nation of Guerillos which pervade the pronunciamentos of the Mexican 
leaders from Santa Anna to Paredes. They advocate the most favorable mode of 
concluding the war that has been broached by any of the enemy's statesmen ; and if it 
were possible for the American nation to carry them into practice, the Mexicans, and not 
we, would be the gainers by a war brought on by their outrages, and in which our armies 
have been so eminently victorious. We congratulate the Mexican nation then in having 
at least one representative upon the floor of Congress in the person of Mr. Van Dyke, and 
only regret that so patriotic a State as New-Jersey should have to bear the reproach 
of furnishing the traitor of his country's fame, honor and interest." 

The Jersey Blues did and do repudiate these sentiments. The 
resolutions passed at public meetings in our State were read and are 
known of all men. I will give but one more extract showing the feel- 
ing the resolutions produced in a neighboring State. The Pennsylva- 
nian in noticing the " unmagnanimous resolutions " said : — 

" Well done, Mr. Van Dyke. The State you represent in part will thank you for the 
compliment that you pay to your country. The gallant dead that repose beneath her sa- 
cred soil are honored by your patriotic courage ; Princeton and Yorktown will ring your 
praise, and your name will live as long as the Delaware hurries its waters to the ocean, or 
while history tells of Washington and his victories. A statesman so wise — a patriot so 
fearless — is worthy of being cherished and sustained. Mr. Van Dyke should be sent 
forthwith to Mexico to consummate a peace. He would be so true to his country, and so 
lair to Mexico. Before his mighty voice our armies would return to the bank of the 
Neuces. SCOTT would kneel at his feet. TAYLOR would kiss the hem of his diplo- 
matic robes. He would be waited upon by great captains, and followed by crowds of 
grateful Mexicans. We fear the air of his country will spoil him, and it would be a 
nation's loss to lose VAN DYKE ! !" 

But, to proceed with your argument, you say "It is useless to tell 
me that masters are kind, and that the slaves are happy and contented. 
Their contentment is shown by the thousands who every year brave 
every hardship and every danger in making their escape from bondage." 
•" Thousands every year? That is an assertion. Now look at a fact. 



32 SLAVEHOLDING NOT SINFUL : 

See Compendium U. S. Census, Table XLIV. : — Manumitted and Fugi- 
tive Slaves in 1850. Manumitted, 1,467 ; Fugitive, 1,011. Thus we see 
in 1850 456 more slaves were liberated by masteis kind enough to 
free them, than there were who ran away from masters, some no doubt 
kind, although most may not have been. "Where are the thousands 
you speak of! There are more children who run away from their 
parents, and soldiers and sailors who desert from the army and their 
ships, I venture the assertion, than 1,011 twice told. But that is no 
argument to prove that the relation of parent and child, officer and 
soldier and sailor, is a sinful relation; or that master and slave is a 
sinful relation. Neither does it follow that it is a sin to have children 
and an army and navy because children run away and soldiers and 
sailors desert. 

You ask "what becomes of kindness and humanity when passion 
and power are united together." "Why Sir, when passion and power 
are united together and are exhibited at one time, abuses of power 
arise; but because power is abused by some, is no reason that it is a sin 
to have power. The sin lies in the abuse of the power. In order to 
fasten the exhibition of passion upon the possession of power, you have 
got to show that passion comes of necessity, from the possession of power, 
and is inseparable from it and partakes of its nature. Is it a general 
rule that powerful men are passionate, and that they abuse the power? 
Surely you cannot prove this; then why argue against power as sinful be- 
cause passionate men abuse their power. "Why say it is a sin to hold 
slaves, because passionate masters abuse their slaves, and not say it 
is a sin to have and hold a son until 21 years of age, because pas- 
sionate fathers abuse their sons. Undoubtedly it is a sin to abuse any 
one, 3 T et it is no sin to have power. The sin lies in the abuse of the 
power. Another assertion of yours is, that Dr. How was a clergyman, 
therefore in the South as at the North, they " laid aside their vices and 
crimes" and put on their best behavior in the presence of the "do- 
minie." So inthe South, "no man ever carried his slave into your pres- 
ence to be lashed, &c." This is in a measure true, and is a good exam- 
ple to prove the truth of what Dr. How asserts, and what you do not 
deny, that Christianity softens the rigor of the master by curbing his 
passions, and lightens the burdens of the slave. Therefore philanthro- 
pists ought not to throw obstacles in the way of Christians, and refuse 
to hold connection with them, and thus discourage Christ's ministers, 
and destroy their influence for good upon master and slave. 

You also assert that you have seen slaves sold at the South to the 
highest bidder, no matter whom it might be, to be carried by him 
whithersoever he might think proper, and be subjected without restraint 
to whatever hardship and cruelty his whim and malice might suggest 
or invent. Can you in the presence of the searcher of hearts, the 
God of truth, make such an assertion. You must know on reflection, 
that they cannot take them wheresoever they please, and that some of 
their laws forbid cruelty, T have just shown. 

You do not deny that Christianity ameliorates the condition of tho 



Atf ANSWER. TO JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. 33 

slave ; and you assert that "if slavery be so great an ' evil' with all the 
mitigating influence of Christianity upon it, God only can tell what it 
would be without it ; but this is nothing in favor of a system scarcely 
endurable with such an influence." What it would be without the gos- 
pel, man can tell also . Look at Africa, see its abuses there, and we can 
say that the gospel has rendered negro slavery easier in the United 
States than in Africa. Thus much can be said in favor of American 
negro slavery. And it can well be said that it is better to preach Christ 
and him crucified, than to preach abolitionism and such abstract hu- 
man rights as have no foundation in fact, when the preaching of the 
first has mitigated the abuses of slavery, and the preaching of the last 
has only tightened his bonds. Anil now for the conclusion. Addres- 
sing Dr. llow, you say, " As you have delivered your argument twice, 
and written it out once, you will not care probably to travel over the 
ground again, but if at the next General Synod you shall think proper 
to discuss the other features of the peculiar and patriarchal institution, 
I may find it expedient to continue the subject." Dr. How has not 
delivered his argument twice, but you have printed your reply twice, 
once in a pamphlet, and once in the Frcdonian, and there will bo 
no necessity for him to travel over his argument again, for you havo 
placed no obstacle to be cleared away; neither will Dr. llow be a del- 
egate to the next Synod, it not being his turn to go. Therefore, you 
m ly not, as far as he is concerned, find it expedient to continue the sub- 
ject; but if you should see fit to notice my answer to your reply, you 
will always find me ready to confute any arguments you may bring to 
prove that slaveholding is a sin. 

Let us now see what the whole of your reply amounts to, and 
what it is good for ! You have asserted that to hold a slave is a sin/but 
never proved it. You have argued against the just and lawful use of 
slave lab^r, because some slaves have been abused. You have not dis- 
tinguished between a sanction and a permission. You have entirely 
overlooked and mistaken the universal binding force of the tenth com- 
mand, wherein man-servant and maid-servant are enumerated as prop- 
erty ; the Hebrew word for man-servant means a slave, and if God had 
not intended to mention slaves as property, He could, and doubtless 
would have used the Hebrew word that was applied to hired servants, 
and not have used the word by which the Israelites called their slaves, 
and understood as applied to bond-men and women, bought with 
money, as much their property as the slave at the South is the prop- 
erty of his master. You have proposed nothing to mitigate the con- 
dition of the slave you sympathize with so much, for you say with dis- 
dain that you are not an abolitionist. All you have done is this : you 
have, abused your Southern fellow-citizens, and have tried to cast dis- 
credit upon, as you say the " land of the free and the home of tho 
slave." The way in which you make assertions without proof is appal- 
ling ; the manner in which you misconstrue Dr. llow, and the illogical 
conclusions you draw, and your modest assurance have afforded mo 
much amusement and laughter. Indeed, all the good that can be de- 



34 AN ANSWER TO JOnN VAN" DYKE, ESQ. 

rived from your pamphlet is to enjoy a laugh over nnd at it; and that 
it is useful to have something to laugh at was acknowledged as far 
back as the time of (he flood or universal deluge, for it is said that 
Noah was about to exclude the peacock from the ark hecause he would 
take up too much room on account of his great strutting and tail- 
spreading propensities, hut his scruples were at lenglh overcome, and 
the Peacock admitted at the solicitation of the Owl, who said if the 
Peacock was good for nothing else he would do for a laughingstock 
for the rest of the animals. 

If you should write again please to show one command of God 
forbidding the holding of a slave, and pronouncing it a sin. Where 
there is no law (here is no transgression ; for sin is a transgression of the 
law, and as there is no law forbidding slavehohling, hut God has sanc- 
tioned it, I conclude with the assertion and (he fact that 

SLAYEIIOLDING IS NOT SINFUL. 

Yours respectfully, 

HENRY K. HOW. 



P. S. — Writing at my place of business, interrupted at least one 
hundred times, at the expiration of one week from its commencement, 
I concluded (his answer, and hoped in a few days to have had the 
pleasure to furnish you with a copy, but unavoidable hindrances be- 
yond my control and the control of (he printer of (he pamphlet, has 
delayed its appearance until now, the eleventh of April. During this 
delay, one fact has come under ray notice, it is (his : although four 
weeks have elapsed since your "Reply" was ushered into the world, 
addressed to Dr. How hy name, and written to him personally, still you 
have not as yet had the politeness to send him a copy. I have endea- 
vored not to he guilty ot'th's breach of etiquette, and have therefore 
deposited in the post office, directed to your address, the tirst completed 
copy of my answer, which I hope you will receive. Yours, <fcc, 

H. K. H. 



